I would like to discuss A Crooked House. A very interesting book to dramatise. You could angle the storytelling to imply that the self-absorbed parents were SPOILER ALERT, responsible for the neglected upbringing of the murderer, and why that resulted in a crime being committed. That would fit well with contemporary notions of environment being responsible for criminal behaviour. The parents were, indeed, neglectful - up to a point.
Interesting point. In other books, "Ordeal by Innocence" and "Nemesis" AC also deals with the problem of nature vs. nurture. in "Crooked House" she plumps for both - It is very clear that the parents were self-absorbed (even perhaps narcisistic, in the case of the mother), but at the end, SPOILER AC has the hero compare the two sisters - saying all the bad traits of the family came out in the younger daughter (i.e. the dishonesty of the grandfather, the ruthlessness of the grandmother etc.) while all the good traits came out in the older daughter - the kindness of the grandfather, the integrity of the grandmother. So I guess she is saying that there is a bunch of potential characteristics based on genetics, but their appearance may (not certainly but maybe) be affected by nurture, i.e. parenting. In Nemesis and in OBI she goes more strongly for nature - SPOILER while she admits these people (Michael Rafiel and Jacko, respectively) Could have been brought up better, she has authoritative figures in both cases state that nothing in the upbringing would have made a difference in the outcome of their turning to crime.
Yes, I would definitely say that she plumps for Nature. I felt that especially on reading Mrs McGinty's Dead. The "Squire' thought so, and the old lady who was sponsoring the playwright. Heredity is essentially the nub of that novel. With Jacko, and that novel, she could hardly have made any clearer her rather old-fashioned, not to say, perhaps, rather unbending views.
Comments
Let's read or re-read it!